A few posts here read that the Voigtlander R2 is (going to be) a very nice camera, selling for about US$ 500,00. Sure, it has a smaller rangefinder, equivalent of the CL, but it is all metal and has almost the same specs as an M6, even a better synch. speed and some wrote that the viewfinder is even brighter than that of the M6/7.

I was always told that the rangefinder itself is the most expensive part of any M camera. How is it possible than that this camera can be sold for about a quarter to a fifth of the Leica price? Just a better production method? Not producing for a collectors market? Not keeping the price artificially high just to keep up with some myth? Just aiming at selling a lot of cameras and therefore more production, thus a possible lower price?

Frank

-- Frank Bunnik (frank_bunnik@hotmail.com), May 03, 2002

Answers

Frank,
First, if you hold the two products in your hands, I am sure you will see and feel a diffence.
Second, I work in a company which makes quality products, and I can assure you that only a marginal improvement in quality translates into a significant increase in production costs.
Get the one that gives _you_ the most value for your money.
cheers.

-- Niels H. S. Nielsen (nhsn@ruc.dk), May 03, 2002.

Leica's pricing strategy could be a reflection of many things. Myth, cost-plus pricing, price skimming, etc. No one could tell you for sure. But supposodly, Leica still do some the M6/M7 production by hand, but not much.

I believe that due to their smaller productions lines, Leica needs to increase prices to the maximum they believe consumers are willing to pay (price skimming) in order to reflect their costs an maintain enough $$$ to invest in R&D (ha!).

And they've been getting away with charging such high prices for so long, that they are only pricing according to the market's expectations, which if met or exceeded will bring good business...as it obviously is.

If the market becomes saturated with substitute products such as VC's R2, then we may see a drop in price. Although a drop in price changes our expectations, and could possibly lead to consumers perceptions of the product declining in value. Market positioning of a product can be a very expensive process to most companies, but Leica have achieved it through early innovations and famous photographers using their cameras. They're not about to just give it up but heavily reducing their prices.

Lastly, another way the M6/M7's price could drop is if the product life cylcle becomes shorter than expected (due to various competitive reasons/digital etc), and prices are reduced to clear the product. Well if the success is going to be anythijng like the life cycle of the M6, it would appear that a heavy reduction in price is only a dream or miracle away.

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), May 03, 2002.

Bear in mind that the price of a Leica includes maintaining a service department that supports product for fifty years. Many companies drop support after ten years. Also, the product is regularly discounted by rebates and "Leica Days," where the dealers give a 10% discount on top of the rebates. The quality of a Leica runs deep. Shutter, advance gears, and so on are designed to give a lifetime of service. I'm sure a hard user will wear out several R2s (enjoying less reliable service in the meantime) while the M6 keeps going. But the R2 is a great option. I'm sure you get the advantage of a production set up with modern methods, automation, computer guided milling, etc. Leitz is notoriously stodgey and conservative. The M7 shutter reminds me of where Nikon was twenty-five years ago.

-- Phil Stiles (stiles@metrocast.net), May 03, 2002.

Also, a lot of Japanese companies like Cosina operate with other companies 'under their umbrella.' Many small machine shops and manufacturers of optical and mechanical parts bid against each other for contracts. Even if designed by Cosina, the rangefinder would probably be made of parts from several of these small companies. From what I've read here and elsewhere, it seems Leica keeps most of their production 'in house.'

-- Carlin (carlinm@abac.com), May 03, 2002.

One just has to look at the year-end statements of Leica for the last few years to realize that they aren't artificially inflating the costs. A lot of companies would have pulled the plug long ago with the kind of profits Leica has. I agree completely that with any product it gets to a point where any increase in quality has a hefty price increase. Think of anything that you equate with hand built quality. Will a Mercedes or Ferrari really get you there any better than a Ford Escort? Does a Rolex tell better time than a Timex? In a utilitarian sense we are all crazy here to buy Leicas, but for whatever reason, if you want that little bit of extra 'oomph' you gots to pay. Also look at it this way. Leica pioneered the modern rangefinder camera and over 50 years pretty much perfected it. All Cosina had to do was buy an M6 and copy it. Not much expense in that.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), May 03, 2002.

Mostly its just economies of scale with the R2 sharing many parts with other Cosina products. It's hard to exaggerate what an advantage this is. Take for example the evenly-matched 180mm 2.8 Apo Leica R lens and 180mm ED-IF AF Nikkor. This is not one of those cases where you have to stop the Nikkor down to get it into the same ballpark as the Leica; or where the Nikkor is harsh and too contrasty compared to the delicate tonalities of the german product, etc. Instead both are veritable dream lenses, there is nothing to distinguish their slides or negatives on the light table. Yet today's price for the Leica lens at B&H is $3,295 vs $734.95 for the Nikkor -or $589.95 grey market! That's because, as Phillip Greenspun has pointed out elsewhere, the Nikon lens is being mass-produced for a large professional market; whereas Leica is making a few dozen each year most destined for wealthy amateur

-- david kelly (dmkedit@aol.com), May 03, 2002.

It's just another boy toy following in the same vain attempt to emulate your heros by buying what they use(d): the ball/clubs which Tiger uses; the bat/glove Bonds uses; the reel/rod you saw on TV; the tools my mechanic uses; the camera/lens the "Pro's" use.

The cost for incremental quality is called justification and rationalizing. My M3 is compact, but no lightweight. Just got it cheap on a recommendation.

-- Allison Reese (a_b_reese3@hotmail.com), May 03, 2002.

It's just another boy toy following in the same vain attempt to emulate your heros by buying what they use(d): the ball/clubs which Tiger uses; the bat/glove Bonds uses; the reel/rod you saw on TV; the tools my mechanic uses; the camera/lens the "Pro's" use.

The cost for incremental quality is called justification and rationalizing. My M3 is compact, but no lightweight. Just got it cheap on a recommendation for class.

-- Allison Reese (a_b_reese3@hotmail.com), May 03, 2002.

Actually many (most?) Canon and Nikon owners are heavily into equipment and the "boys-with-toys" accusation is just as true with them too. In some ways Leica is different to this. Nikon and Canon though have perfected their marketing speak and features to attract precisely the boys-with-toys approach (ages 16-35), this certainly accounts for a good deal of their success in the market. To read the techno-babble in their camera brochures is an education in itself. We all know it makes virtually no difference to whether you can take a good shot or not - but by god it sounds good. No wonder Leica cannot compete in this market!

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), May 03, 2002.

Actually I find Allisons statement kind of odd. I think most of what I by is on the recommendation of people I respect, for whatever reason, though I don't think hero worship plays a large part. Someone whose recommendation you obviously trusted told you about the M3, and you bought it. Through interviews I've read, and the quality of his work, I 'trusted' Ralph Gibson's feelings on the rangefinder Leica. His opinion I respect - now Superman - he's a hero ;-)

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), May 03, 2002.

David Kelly has it exactly right. I own several Canon EF lenses that are easily as good as my Leica counterparts (though most Leica users would forever dispute this). The price/quality equation does not always hold when comparing the best from Japan with the best from Gemany.

Re. the Bessa: I owned an R and have played with a T (simiar all- metal top plate as R2) and I can state with certatainty that these cameras are no Leicas in terms of the quality of materials. They are more like the mass-market consumer SLRs in feel (which of course is their heritage). That does NOT make them bad cameras. But in this case I think you really are getting something for your money when buying a Leica body.

-- Gary Voth (garyvot@vothphoto.com), May 03, 2002.

Frank raises a legitimate question. Why are Leica prices so much higher than those of CV and do they artificially elevate their prices?

Well for one thing, Leica is a very small company and does not benefit from economies of scale. Cosina generates much of their revenues from making inexpensive SLR camera bodies and lenses and doesn't have to worry so much on generating a profit margin on every single item it makes. Labor costs are still much lower in the Far East than in Europe (even if much of the production is in Portugal). Leica has to worry about expensive retirement plans and the like for its employees too.

Having said all that, CV rangefinder lenses are well made but not to the standard of Leica M lenses. I suspect the same is true for their cameras. I doubt anyone will mistake a Bess R2 for an M6 or M7 in terms of build quality. And the rangefinders are NOT nearly identical. The Leica RF has a much longer baselength (and thus is more accurate).

Bottom line: I'm sure you get better value for money with CV but if you want Leica, you have to pay.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), May 03, 2002.

I've never owned a Bessa, but I've owned several Nikons and several Leica's. However, in handling the Bessa, would anyone in their right mind trade their M6 for a Bessa R2? Not me!!! And what about lens quality? Having used Nikons and Leicas over the years, I'm here to tell all of you that there is no comparison between a Nikon lens and a Leica lens, especially if you're shooting in color. The saturation from the Leica is staggering! And if you're into wide-angle photography, don't even try to compare the Japanese counterparts with a Leica. Although Nikons have better quality lenses today than ever before, I would gladly trade my $700 20mm Nikon Lens for my $2,000 21mm Asph Leica lens. I'd pay twice the difference to get twice the quality! Just try to blow up the picture taken with the Nikon to 30" x 40" and compare it to the Leica. I know, because I've tried it.

The bottom line for me is this: You get what you pay for!

-- Bill Blackwell (luckyman57@hotmail.com), June 29, 2002.